Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

When someone buys a share in Apple, they actually get an ownership share in Apple.
When someone says they're buying a share in Alibaba, they actually buying shares in a VIE called Alibaba Group Holdings Limited which was incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The VIE has contractual rights to Alibaba China's profits, but not anything that resembles ownership.
It's not the same thing as share of Apple at all.

For those not familiar with southwest:
There is no assigned seating. People board in three groups, A (frequent flyers, people paying extra for early boarding), B and C (everyone else, numbered by check in order).
Long story short, he bought the cheap tickets for his kids and wanted a free upgrade. He then threw a fit when he didn't get his way.

Agreed. Besides, the conspiracy theorist in my head thinks a lot of this is faux outrage on the part of the French government. I'm willing to bet that similar to the UK, the NSA is sharing all the information they're getting from the French taps with the DCRI (or other French intelligence service). Sort of reminds me of the Pakistani drone strikes. Outraged in public but definitely working with the US behind closed doors.

If you actually read the article, Fedora is doing as a convenience to the users, so that they don't have to screw with UEFI settings on their x86 devices.
On non-ARM systems, one can and will be able to disable secure boot.

Mandatory. On non-ARM systems, the platform MUST implement the ability for a physically present user to select between two Secure Boot modes in firmware setup: "Custom" and "Standard". Custom Mode allows for more flexibility as specified in the following:

It shall be possible for a physically present user to use the Custom Mode firmware setup option to modify the contents of the Secure Boot signature databases and the PK. This may be implemented by simply providing the option to clear all Secure Boot databases (PK, KEK, db, dbx) which will put the system into setup mode.

If the user ends up deleting the PK then, upon exiting the Custom Mode firmware setup, the system will be operating in Setup Mode with SecureBoot turned off.

The firmware setup shall indicate if Secure Boot is turned on, and if it is operated in Standard or Custom Mode. The firmware setup must provide an option to return from Custom to Standard Mode which restores the factory defaults.On an ARM system, it is forbidden to enable Custom Mode. Only Standard Mode may be enabled."

x86 devices can still install whatever they want, barring this extra hoop to turn off Secure Boot. Like I said earlier, Fedora just wants to ship their image with a signed loader so the users don't have to go through that hoop. From TFA:

While Microsoft have(sic) modified their original position and all x86 Windows machines will be required to have a firmware option to disable this or to permit users to enrol their own keys, it's not really an option to force all our users to play with hard to find firmware settings before they can run Fedora.

ARM (essentially tablet) devices are locked down completely - which is absolutely no different than what Apple does right now on the iPad.

Well, they mean the system they're proposing will support charging your vehicle in as little as 15 minutes.
i.e. The connector supports lots of different fast-charging options ( 3 phase AC, High Voltage DC) and can handle the current required* to charge in 15 minutes.
*Naturally, YMMV - since you need to be able to source the current required, charging times are dependent upon battery size, etc.

That was what I meant. Curious that so many people didn't seem to understand that it would work that way, and that they'd be within their right as a sovereign nation to decide which treaties they'll be party to.

This is/., you should know better! Iran should not, however, expect such a move to come without repercussions.

As it stands, they are party to that treaty, and are complying with it.

Sort of.

Article III: Each non-NWS party undertakes to conclude an agreement with the IAEA for the application of its safeguards to all nuclear material in all of the state's peaceful nuclear activities and to prevent diversion of such material to nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

Iran is a sovereign nation and if they wish to produce nuclear weapons because they feel threatened by their neighbors (Israel, a nuclear power) or as a deterrent then that is their prerogative.

Not exactly. Iran is a signatory of the NPT.

Article II: Each non-NWS party undertakes not to receive, from any source, nuclear weapons, or other nuclear explosive devices; not to manufacture or acquire such weapons or devices; and not to receive any assistance in their manufacture.

It's their prerogative to do so should they first decide to withdraw from the NPT, similar to what North Korea did.

If you consider the balanced budget the Republican congress forced on him (and he went along with because he thought he could hang them with it) then you can keep your "fiscally responsible" bit. If you ignore the "Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994" you can have "individual rights". If you ignore "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and White House Interns (seriously, how can one forget that one?) you can have "distracting hot button issue". Finally, SCHIP is also hardly something one could consider "small government", no matter how laudable it's goals were.

Please, let's not start giving Clinton the "Reagan treatment" and looking at him through rose colored glasses too.

The GP describes the perfect libertarian candidate. Unfortunately, there aren't any. While Ron Paul professes to be the things the GP is interested in, he comes with one large caveat: He's also crazy.

I think the point was that it makes it easier to pull off the "social engineering" if you have access to information only privileged parties should have. They should still be encrypting the locally stored data, and it's just lazy not to.

Like most things, there needs to be some balance between those things that you get from a vendor, and those things you do in house. Too much of either end of the spectrum is generally a problem. Too much from the vendors and you end up with the scenarios that the author describes. Too much of the in-house work, and you end up with a NMH (not made here) mentality which is ultimately destructive to the company. You end up wasting too much time re-inventing the wheel when an off-the-shelf solution would be adequate for your needs.

In the end, weigh the factors involved (timeframe, cost, how close existing solutions are to what you need ) and just make sure you pick the right tool for the job. Too much time with the hammer, and everything starts looking like a nail.